Worcester charter changes possible

For those people who want to see a change in Worcester's form of government, the timing for that may be no better than now.

City Manager Michael V. OBrien's Jan. 5 departure to become an executive vice president at Boston-based WinnDevelopment has breathed new life into long-standing talk about changing Worcester's charter.

But that should come as no surprise because charter change has been a frequent topic of conversation in this city for years and years.

Since Worcester switched to the council-manager government in 1950, numerous efforts have been made to bring back the so-called "strong mayor" form of government — what the city had prior to 1950 — in which an elected mayor served as its chief executive.

That's because a growing number of people want to have a say in who runs their city. Unlike a strong mayor who is elected by the voters, Worcester's city manager is appointed by the City Council.

As a result, opponents of the council-manager government contend that a city manager lacks accountability to the people.

They also feel that if voters are given the power to decide who the city's chief executive will be, it will get more people engaged in their city government — something that is sorely lacking today.

But Worcester's council-manager form of government has been able to withstand the many efforts to get rid of it.

In most instances, the timing to make such a significant change just wasn't right.

Talk of charter change had even become pretty much dormant in recent years, in large part because of the job Mr. O'Brien was doing as city manager.

With the many good things that have been going on in Worcester, the talk of charter change was put on the back burner because people didn't want to interrupt the positive momentum that had been building in the city.

But now that Mr. O'Brien is leaving, that excuse is no longer in play.

"If there was ever a time for us to consider changing the charter, it's now," said William S. Coleman III, a local political activist who has made frequent bids for City Council and has advocated for charter change in the past.

"I'm willing to help out any way I can to get the signatures needed to get this question on the ballot," he added. "Mike O'Brien did a great job as city manager but now that he is leaving I think people should be given an opportunity to voice their opinion on strong mayor."

Mind you, the City Council hasn't said a word as a group about charter change since Mr. O'Brien announced his resignation, or even hinted at it. But the wheels are said to be turning behind the scenes.

Changing a city charter is no easy exercise, though, and the process could be a lengthy one.

One way to achieve a charter change is through the initiative petition process, but that could take up to six years.

To get the charter question on the ballot, supporters would first have to gather signatures of voters equal to at least 15 percent of the total number of registered voters in the city.

In this instance, that would require more than 15,000 signatures — heck, barely that many people voted in the recent municipal election. If the signature requirement is met, the charter question would be placed on the ballot; at the same time, voters would also be asked to elect a charter commission.

Once organized, the charter commission would spend two years holding public hearings and drafting any changes to the charter. Those changes would then be put before the voters at the next municipal election. If approved, they would take effect in the municipal election after that.

The city went through that process in the mid-1980s when the charter was last changed, but you have to wonder if strong-mayor advocates would want to go through that lengthy process again, especially after they were spurned in that process.

Another way to seek charter change is by having the City Council petition the state Legislature. That process is considerably shorter; some say it actually could be done in about two years.

If the Legislature were to approve such a petition from the council, the voters would then be able to weigh in on the strong-mayor issue in a special election. And if it was to win the voters' approval, it's possible that a strong mayor could be elected as early as 2015.

But that's nothing but speculation for now.

The City Council is currently focused on appointing a successor to Mr. O'Brien, and it is poised to give the job to Edward M. Augustus on an interim basis.

Mayor Joseph M. Petty last week called on the council to hire Mr. Augustus, who directs the office of government and community relations at the College of the Holy Cross, for a period of up to nine months, and possibly even as much as a year.

Mr. Petty said that will give the council some breathing room to conduct a search for a permanent successor.

Of course, it will also give the council some time to decide whether it wants to pursue a charter change through the legislative route. Don't look for the council to talk about it anytime soon — its first concern is getting Mr. Augustus on board — but don't be surprised if it comes up down the road.

Also, there are those who feel a strong-mayor effort now would receive more support in the community than in past years in large part because of the city's changing demographics.

The old guard that ushered in the council-manager form of government in 1950 and successfully fought off efforts to get rid of it has diminished in size, and its clout in the community has waned considerably.

Instead, populist grass-roots groups like Neighbor to Neighbor have become more powerful and played instrumental roles in getting people elected to the City Council, School Committee and other local offices.

Indeed, timing is everything, and the way things are shaping up, the time could finally be right to make a bid to bring a strong mayor back to Worcester.